• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Notre Dame - 12:00 - ABC

 
Answers my question. So it’s been at least 9 years.
 
Good to see we're getting some love from the announcers.
Every little bit helps.
 
Not only has the secondary been awful this season, so has the pass rush. The offense will have to do a ton to keep us in this. Not too hopeful, but I’ll be there to witness it.

It was against BC. Against Tulane and Towson, both a step down in competition of course, we got good pressure but didn't finish worth a crap. If/when we get to Wimbush/Book our guys have got to wrap up and get them on the ground.
 
Analysts this morning saying we can score on Notre Dame, but that our defense is "porous", still complimenting us on how many plays we run a game and how explosive our receivers and RBs can be. Last year Colburn lit them up, hopefully he can do so again this year, add in some more from Carney, and give me Sage and the Torch for a couple TDs. If Sam can not turn the ball over and play at a consistently high level we've shown flashes of, I like our chances. Analysts are saying Notre Dame has a shitty offense and it would be a stunner for them to score more than 30 points against any P5 school.
 
Analysts this morning saying we can score on Notre Dame, but that our defense is "porous", still complimenting us on how many plays we run a game and how explosive our receivers and RBs can be. Last year Colburn lit them up, hopefully he can do so again this year, add in some more from Carney, and give me Sage and the Torch for a couple TDs. If Sam can not turn the ball over and play at a consistently high level we've shown flashes of, I like our chances. Analysts are saying Notre Dame has a shitty offense and it would be a stunner for them to score more than 30 points against any P5 school.

So it's a given they lay at least 40 on us tomorrow then.
 
It was against BC. Against Tulane and Towson, both a step down in competition of course, we got good pressure but didn't finish worth a crap. If/when we get to Wimbush/Book our guys have got to wrap up and get them on the ground.

Disagree. Our poor pass rush is how Tulane and Towson beat us deep on plays the QBs extended with their feet. Our DL gets good pressure but struggles to finish.
 
Agree that the defense has suffered since the middle of last year, but part of the issue has been the change in offensive philosophy. When it became clear last year that WF had some elite offensive weapons, WF ramped up the offensive pace.

That plan to maximize the number of offensive plays continues. WF ran 100+ plays last week -- a ridiculously high number of plays. The idea is pretty simple: our offense is potent, more plays means more chances to score means more offense points. This change is philosophy to increase the number of plays and drives; also means that the WF defense is on the field for more plays and more drives. Last week, the WF defense forced BC to punt 9 times. That is a lot. Yet, BC still scored 6 TDs; and ran out the clock on one other possession. BC had 16 possessions last week that is a ton. As an example, in the BYU v. Wisconsin game last week, each team had 10 possessions; last week against Vandy, when ND scored 22, they had 11 offensive possesions. The WF offense could help the defense by slowing the offensive pace. Clawson has decided that is not in our interest (and is also not as fun to watch). The downside is that playing up tempo will mean more points given up.

It's somewhat akin to the flawed de facto conclusion that up tempo hoop teams play bad defense because they give up more points, than slower paced teams. Not always true. Uptempo offensive teams will give up more points because the opponent has more possessions, but allowing more points doesn't always mean that the defense isn't as a good or better than a slow paced team that gives up fewer points. That is why hoop analytics values points per possession as an offensive and defensive metric as compared to points allowed per game.
 
Last edited:
Agree that the defense has suffered since the middle of last year, but part of the issue has been the change in offensive philosophy. When it became clear last year that WF had some elite offensive weapons, WF ramped up the offensive pace.

That plan to maximize the number of offensive plays continues. WF ran 100+ plays last week -- a ridiculously high number of plays. The idea is pretty simple: our offense is potent, more plays means more chances to score means more offense points. This change is philosophy to increase the number of plays and drives; also means that the WF defense is on the field for more plays and more drives. Last week, the WF defense forced BC to punt 9 times. That is a lot. Yet, BC still scored 6 TDs; and ran out the clock on one other possession. BC had 16 possessions last week that is a ton. As an example, in the BYU v. Wisconsin game last week, each team had 10 possessions; last week against Vandy, when ND scored 22, they had 11 offensive possesions. The WF offense could help the defense by slowing the offensive pace. Clawson has decided that is not in our interest (and is also not as fun to watch). The downside is that playing up tempo will mean more points given up.

It's somewhat akin to the flawed de facto conclusion that up tempo hoop teams play bad defense because they give up more points, than slower paced teams. Not always true. Uptempo offensive teams will give up more points because the opponent has more possessions, but allowing more points doesn't always mean that the defense isn't as a good or better than a slow paced team that gives up fewer points. That is why hoop analytics values points per possession as an offensive and defensive metric as compared to points allowed per game.

Well, if we're going to play that way the offense need to get things right.

IOW,

We must win the turnover battle.
 
Agree that the defense has suffered since the middle of last year, but part of the issue has been the change in offensive philosophy. When it became clear last year that WF had some elite offensive weapons, WF ramped up the offensive pace.

That plan to maximize the number of offensive plays continues. WF ran 100+ plays last week -- a ridiculously high number of plays. The idea is pretty simple: our offense is potent, more plays means more chances to score means more offense points. This change is philosophy to increase the number of plays and drives; also means that the WF defense is on the field for more plays and more drives. Last week, the WF defense forced BC to punt 9 times. That is a lot. Yet, BC still scored 6 TDs; and ran out the clock on one other possession. BC had 16 possessions last week that is a ton. As an example, in the BYU v. Wisconsin game last week, each team had 10 possessions; last week against Vandy, when ND scored 22, they had 11 offensive possesions. The WF offense could help the defense by slowing the offensive pace. Clawson has decided that is not in our interest (and is also not as fun to watch). The downside is that playing up tempo will mean more points given up.

It's somewhat akin to the flawed de facto conclusion that up tempo hoop teams play bad defense because they give up more points, than slower paced teams. Not always true. Uptempo offensive teams will give up more points because the opponent has more possessions, but allowing more points doesn't always mean that the defense isn't as a good or better than a slow paced team that gives up fewer points. That is why hoop analytics values points per possession as an offensive and defensive metric as compared to points allowed per game.

Without digging into the numbers, I would guess that our rate statistics got worse once we increased the plays per game on both sides. Depth has always been an issue at Wake and increasing the number of plays exposes that weakness.
 
Back
Top